From: Miguel Carrasquer
>On 05-02-15 20:13, Miguel Carrasquer wrote:What was Pinault's law again?
>> Of course I'm not denying that the root *pot- occurred with
>> the "stative" suffix *-eh1(i)-. I just don't see how
>> inserting a laryngeal makes the derivation of *potnih2 any
>> easier, and the participal suffix -nt- (why was it reduced
>> to -n-?) disconnects the feminine from the masculine form.
>The reduction of *-nt- to -n- is hardly unusual in the oldest layer of
>substantivised participles. We have quite a few agent nouns like
>*tek^þ-o:n (excuse the thorn), where the *-on- can scarcely be anything
>else but an allomorph of *-ont-. Note also the variation of *-n- and
>*-nt- in the individualising suffix (whether or not ultimately related
>to the pres.part.). Presumably the old pronunciation of //-ont-// +
>nom.sg. //-s// was -o:n, with the whole obstruent part of the coda
>deleted. I would therefore expect *póth1o:n --> *pot(h1)nih2 (influenced
>by the surface form of the masculine word), just like *ték^þo:n >
>*tek^þn[.]ih2 (Gk. tektaina, Skt. taks.ni:). The dropping of *h1 already
>in PIE is perhaps irregular (one can't invoke Saussure's Law here), but
>any conventional term of reverent address is likely to be so contracted
>(obvious examples are aplenty).
>> A form *pot-h1i-n(t)-ih2 would have given Skt. *path(i)ni:,
>> not patni:. Same goes for a masc. *pot-h1i-s, where would
>> then expect Av. *pa(i)Ti, not <paiti>. Cf. the Indo-Iranian
>> forms of N. *póntoHs, A. *póntHm., G. *pn.tHós (Skt. N.
>> pántha:s, A. pántha:m, obl. path-; Av. N. pantå:, A.
>> panta,m, obl. paT-, OPers. A. paTim).
>I'm not at all persuaded that *h1 (as opposed to *h2) causes aspiration
>in Indo-Iranian. At the very least we could get oblique forms like
>*poth1jos > *potjos already in PIE (via Pinault's Law)
>with their *tBut you know what I think of Caland-variants: they're
>spreading analogically, though I doubt if any such explanation is really
>As regards the origin of *póth1i-, I take it to be in the same relation
>to *poth1ont- as the first element of Avestan tac^i-a:p- 'having flowing
>water' is to *tekW-ent- 'flowing' or (perhaps) the second element of
>Slavic *medv-e^dI (< *medHu-h1edi-) 'bear' to *h1ed-ont- 'eating'. I
>don't want to take Caland's name in vain or to get sidetracked into
>another discussion of that phenomenon
>, but any explanation whichI would agree if we had *pata: like we have taks.a: and
>accounts for such substitutions in general will work for *poth1on(t)- ~
>*poth1i- as well. In other words, I regard *poth1i- as originally the
>compositional counterpart of free-standing *poth1on(t)- (as in "rerum
>omnium potens Iuppiter"), found in such frequently-used compounds as
>*gHosti-poth1i-, *wik^-poth1i-, *dems-poth1i-, *swe-poth1i- etc. (the
>full form of the pres.part. was consistently avoided in this environment).
>> As is the case in the u-stems, the presence of original
>> -(i)n- in what later became i-stems should not be a
>> surprise. Not only do we have neuter i/n-stems in Vedic,
>> but some forms originating in the old in-stems have
>> permeated the i-stem paradigm (although to a much lesser
>> degree than in the u-stems): Isg. -ina:, Gpl. -i:na:m, NA
>> du. n. -ini:, NA pl. n. -i:ni. And there is of course
>> patni:, which must stand in the same relationship to patis
>> (mutatis mutandis) as genitive asthnas stands to asthi.
>I'll address the question of i/n-neuters later (it's tied up with
>something else I intend to discuss, time permitting). However, I can
>already say I disagree with the last sentence. The word "must" would be
>justified if the two cases were parallel, which they aren't. To my mind,
><patni:> is inseparable from <taks.ni:> and <ra:jn^i:>, which clearly
>have nothing to do with oblique cases of neuter stems.